// Home / News

Google claims "open will win"

By Stuart Turton

Posted on 22 Dec 2009 at 10:30

Google has published a manifesto on openness, as it attempts to undo some of the damage done to its "don't be evil" image in recent weeks.

The manifesto was initially published as an internal memo by Jonathan Rosenberg, Google senior vice president of product management. It was intended to clear up misconceptions on Google's definition of "open".

Rosenberg has now published the memo on the company's official blog, and he doesn't shy away from taking a pop at some big names, including Apple.

"At Google we believe that open systems win... The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors," Rosenberg writes.

Eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental... complacency is the hallmark of any closed system

"A well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system," he says.

Gaming the algorithm

Of course, this swiftly raises the thorny issue of why the company isn't more open with its search algorithm. "Our goal is to keep the internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in," claims Rosenberg.

"In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to 'game' our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone," he concludes.

However, while Rosenberg does a good job, on the whole, of defending Google's position and image, he does inadvertently offer ammunition to those worried about the company's fascination with our personal information.

"On the web, the new form of commerce is the exchange of personal information for something of value. This is a transaction that millions of us participate in every day, and it has potentially great benefits," he says.

"An auto insurer could monitor a customer's driving habits in real time and give a discount for good driving - or charge a premium for speeding - powered by information (GPS tracking) that wasn't available only a few years ago," he concludes.

The manifesto comes a week after Google chief executive Eric Schmidt shocked web users by suggesting that those worried about their privacy probably had something to hide.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

:-O

Ermm, no, don't want any of that, thanks very much! :-O

Open systems are fine, but open alone won't win. It needs the design behind it, which is where Microsoft and Apple currently win, on the desktop.

Linux is a great product and can compete on security and features, but the UI is still a disaster area, with different project doing their own thing and a lack of professional designers giving their input into the GUI design.

If Shuttleworth and Ubuntu can crack that, they have a chance at the mass market.

As for exchanging my personal information for goods or services. I'd rather not, thanks all the same.

By big_D on 22 Dec 2009

"In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users"

Hurt the users? Hurt their huge profits more like! Its a similar argument that Microsoft have said in the past. At the end of the day I don't blame them keeping their secrets - I know I would if I'd developed such a good search engine.

Are there still people who still believe Google is a lovely, big huggable cuddly bunch of people who'd rather make a friend than a profit?
They are a big money making corporation - not as bad as some corporations but worse then others.

By cyberindie on 22 Dec 2009

Open is good...

...as long as we get to decide what's best for you and you trust us to open up only those bits. Good grief. Google wouldn't know "open" if it bit them on the arse. They are still claiming Android is "open source". Seriously? They've reached that horribly scary point in every huge globo-corps evolution where the goons inside have forgotten that it's all just marketing rubbish and have actually started believing it themselves. Really, REALLY scary stuff.

By Bassey1976 on 22 Dec 2009

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.